Read More

On Tuesday in London, her counsel, Marcus Grant, told Judge Freedman that there was an 80% chance of reconciliation while lawyers for the other side say that is "no more than fanciful" and was never going to happen.

Contributory negligence on the part of Mr Craven is also alleged, and denied.

Mr Grant said that neither Mrs Craven, who worked as a part-time travel consultant, nor her husband, who was the major breadwinner, had received legal advice about the financial implications of going through with the divorce.

If Mrs Craven had thought it through, she would have opted to save the marriage and reconcile, which was Mr Craven's wish, he added.

The Royal Courts of Justice in London, where the case is being heard (Image: PA)

Mrs Craven's case was that, had he not been killed, her anger was likely to have been eased by the passage of time because she loved him deeply and her desire for divorce would have been lessened to the point of extinction by realisation of the financial consequences.

He said: "The claimant is quite satisfied that once furnished with this advice she would have done everything in her power to reconcile with the deceased and to terminate the divorce proceedings.

"The cooling off period between the decree nisi and decree absolute stages in divorce proceedings is specifically designed to provide angry couples with time to reflect on the financial reality of their decisions before they become irretrievably committed to acting on them."